There you go again

I think they call that ’setting up straw men’, where you keep rebutting things that an opponent hasn’t said. The rest of your armoury is composed of slur and innuendo.

I don’t suppose you’ve ever heard of Blueshirts.

Killian, I was asking Cian a question and he was good enough to answer it. Like I said, I was just querying the fact that you’d not made the post yourself or indeed posted your comments to your site since you’re listed on the link page as one of the politicians who are ‘online’.

As for “When I said “The challenge for Irish republicans is about creating a space around the trappings, offices and operation of a new state that can be owned by both, it is not about republicans becoming more British.” this clearly indicates where in the event of a UI being likely that agreement should be sought. As I am a passionate secularist and republican I wouldn’t support a monarchist solution or any role for any church in a united island.”

What should be sought on what exactly? Is it at all possible that in a potential UI that we would need to continue to respect that there isn’t just one single community living on the island and that we would need find some needs to accommodate that? And while I would be opposed to the idea of a monarch having a role in Ireland I’ll not be losing any sleep worrying about the windsors opening sessions in the Dail any time soon.

And thanks for pointing out the southern ‘liberal blindnes’, I’ll keep it in mind when you’re calling to be the voice of liberal, secular Irish youth.

In this fool’s judgement your comments are becoming progressively more bizarre and fatuous. You look set to achieve the remarkable feat of making the Fine Gael mindset appear even more ridiculous than usual. If Gay Mitchell is the king of wafflers you are a strong contender to be the heir apparent.

Remind us what percentage of the first preference votes you swagged in Artane in 2004. Wasn’t it 1.984? That hardly puts you in a position to denigrate Cllr Forde.

Loved the way that ‘final… solution’ phrase slipped into your prose!

When I said “The challenge for Irish republicans is about creating a space around the trappings, offices and operation of a new state that can be owned by both, it is not about republicans becoming more British.” this clearly indicates where in the event of a UI being likely that agreement should be sought. As I am a passionate secularist and republican I wouldn’t support a monarchist solution or any role for any church in a united island.

The reality is that FG, amognst others, had ceeded the unity project to SF and as I pointed out we are more than happy for assistance or partnership in this matter. And would be fine if you want to do your own thing in truly promoting unity.

Regarding your point on the who and why of my post…………………………..Lighten UP!!

Cian sent me a mail, I was happy to respond.

“what is the likelihood that the SF rent-a-mob would turn up to ensure they were made unwelcome” These few words more than anything else encapulates all that I was saying about the liberal blindness in Ireland on the issue of the north.

Well in fairness Dan as the site says this is The Irish Election. By The People. Giving a politican an account so that they can publish what they want when they want would go against that “by the people” part. Hence why his post on being asked by Cian. Same as any politican would be asked to answer some questions. We have asked a few politicans already to answer questions some have answered as you have seen posted. Others never reply so we can’t do anything about that.

Strange thing is that 90% of the population of the republic has an attachment to someone of foreign royalty but no one bats an eye. I guess if you’re a Polish or German prince that gets elected it is different. Come on. There is a massive difference between the Church and the state. For one you can opt out of the church not so easy to opt out of the state. Also the pope is as you say elected, Queen Elizibeth came out of the Queen Mother before Anne

As for “I think the crown is symbolic of attachment to britainm, its not integral and we would be able to accomadate unionists without drawing in a monarchy.” I think it is a very open question (especially, if there is no one on other side acknowledging that any such question exists) as to what we would be able to do to accommodate unionists/loyalists in a UI. So, we can’t rule it out as something that wouldn’t be asked for. I’ve said it elsewhere, if the price of a UI was we entering into some constitutional arrangement with the Queen as head of state or joint head then I, for one, am against it. That doesn’t I’m going to run screaming about the place like my hair was on fire because Gay has said we should be able to think about things that would be difficult to swallow. Strange thing is that 90% of the population of the republic has an attachment to someone of foreign royalty but no one bats an eye. I guess if you’re a Polish or German prince that gets elected it is different.

Happily im somewhere in the middle, like most. Ive read his speech and heard him on radio yesterday. I think that there is a danger in his wider point-if it gets legs-of dividing a bloc who oppose sinn fein. Not 50/50 but dividing none theless.

I think the crown is symbolic of attachment to britainm, its not integral and we would be able to accomadate unionists without drawing in a monarchy.

Ineterrogating this idea is better than leaving it alone. I dont want SF to be the bastion of republicanism, I dont like political violence and wont vote for it. However we are only likely to draw out the center by setting up the debate.

“This might possibly have had something to do with having to address the issues the voters in this jurisdiction (those pesky people) were pushing to the fore, like, jobs and education, providing a health service and so on.” Equally i think discussing these issues in regard to unification is more productive.